Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Music Education Technology Your Rights Online

Libraries Say DRM May Harm Their Services 214

Posted by Zonk from the stop-with-the-restrictiveness-already dept.
Ernest Adams writes "The BBC is reporting that the British Library is concerned about DRM's effect on its ability to make materials available to the public. Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this. Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to. Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent." We've discussed stories like this before.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libraries Say DRM May Harm Their Services More

Libraries Say DRM May Harm Their Services

Comments Filter:

  • Well, duh (Score:4, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:32AM (#14634487)
    Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this.... DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.

    Article summary provided by the Department of Obviousness Department

    • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:39AM (#14634542)
      Reaction to the article provided by the "Public outrage that should happen, but doesn't" Department.

    • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mikeplokta ( 223052 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:58AM (#14634683)
      It's not obvious at all. DRM systems don't turn themselves off upon copyright expiry, but they could do so. They could be legally required to do so, and it could be illegal to use any DRM system that continued to prevent copying beyond the copyright expiry date, if our legislatures weren't in the pockets of the big media companies.

      • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @10:33AM (#14634965)
        How? That might be worse than the DRM itself.

        You could have the MP3 package check the system time every time you try to play it, and if the year is 20XX + 95, it allows playback. But, as anyone who's played Rise of the Triads knows, it takes only a simple DOS command to make I.P. Freely and the others play with santa hats on.

        Of course, if the content providers decided to go through with this, they would insist on having each file "phone home" to an unimpeachable server to check on an official time before authorizing the unlock. But don't worry, I'm sure a backround process logging each and every DRM'd file you've opened on your PC won't end up being sold to recoup the costs of the system.

        • Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mrogers ( 85392 )
          It doesn't have to be done in a privacy-invading manner (although I agree that it probably would be). For example, the DRM chip on the motherboard could contain its own clock, with clock skew being corrected on a weekly basis using signed updates from a network of time servers. You can also get a time signal anonymously from GPS, and there's a land-based radio time signal in the UK.

      • It's not obvious at all. DRM systems don't turn themselves off upon copyright expiry, but they could do so. They could be legally required to do so, and it could be illegal to use any DRM system that continued to prevent copying beyond the copyright expiry date, if our legislatures weren't in the pockets of the big media companies.

        Ah, but remember, the media companies are constantly trying to extend their copyright term.

        They're not going to release something now which expires in the current statutory term -

        • Their position on the fact that libraries are being penalized by this is that "we may have to concede your right to use it, but we won't help you get it."

          And they shouldn't have to help. Let's say I self-publish a book. I print paper copies, and put a copy in an encrypted filesystem on my computer, and send encrypted copies along with the encryption keys to people who pay me. When copyright expires, anyone can take the paper copy and make more, but why should I be required to supply encryption keys to

      • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:27AM (#14635425)
        They could be legally required to do so, and it could be illegal to use any DRM system that continued to prevent copying beyond the copyright expiry date, if our legislatures weren't in the pockets of the big media companies.

        And it could be made illegal to use DRM at all, as I believe it should. If you want legal Copyright protection then your content should be copyable, otherwise it is like asking for a patent but keeping how your invention works a secret. Unrestrained DRM sacrifices our legitamite right to copy other peoples work.

        • Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bigpat ( 158134 )
          I just wrote my congressman:

          Mr. Tierney,

          The battle over intellectual property laws has brought to light many issues of inequality in our society. Big corporate entities account for vast swaths of ownership of intellectual property, creating a dynamic of ever increasing inequality of information, where the interests of the individual are put at an inferior position to the interests of the corporation.

          One thing that could be done to stop the spread of this inequality is to pass a law prohibiting the use of D

    • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alex P Keaton in da ( 882660 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @10:00AM (#14634712) Homepage
      Gosh- I would never do it, because I don't get to the library as much as I would like...
      But my library has a very extensive CD collection, including a lot of expensive boxed sets that are available for 2 week checkout. They also have a lot of new and mainstream stuff. (When I was younger, the library in my town had a lot of Bob Denver and classical music that I wasn't interested in at the time)
      If someone wanted to load up their iPod or iTunes or whatever with thousands of songs, the library would be a good place to utilize.
      I wonder how long before the RIAA sues libraries to see who is checking out a lot of music... Or how long before they demand that all media available at libraries is heavily DRM-ed.
      Reminds me of Shawshenk Redemption, when Andy says that the songs are in his head, and they can never take them away...
      • When I was younger, the library in my town had a lot of Bob Denver and classical music that I wasn't interested in at the time.

        I think you mean John Denver. Remember

        Bob Denver = Gilligan/Maynard G. Krebs

        John Denver=Rocky Mountain High/noted pilot

        If Bob Denver ever made an album, it was probably a specialty album like Gilligan Sings the Hits (with Mary Ann) or Maynard G. Krebs' Favorite Bongo Solos. Though if your library did have a selection including stuff like that, it would be pretty cool.

    • Problems with Fair Use and libraries (Score:5, Insightful)

      by yar ( 170650 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @10:27AM (#14634914)
      One of the problems with fair use in the United States is that it's generally not considered a "right" per se. Most choose to look at it as an affirmative defense- that is, something brought up when you're accused of copyright infringement. It's all about the framing used to determine who has the burden of proof. If it's a right, then the people who are trying to affect your rights have the burden of proof. If it's a defense, then you have to prove that you weren't infringing copyright. The law itself mentions neither rights nor defenses- it just says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.

      Librarians are great allies to intellectual freedom issues, including those involving DRM. Look at the briefs that the American Library Association has filed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Many librarians are also quite knowledgable about technology-related issues, as well as fun subjects like copyright.

      Libraries have it rough with the increasing prevalence of electronic journals and DRM technologies. Even with material that is accessed online, there's a good chance that once the library stops paying for access, the patrons lose access to that materials- something that never happened with print journals. DRM and licensing are currently putting libraries between a rock and a hard place.
    • >> DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.

      > Article summary provided by the Department of Obviousness Department

      Actually, this is the kind of thing that is very much not obvious to the average Joe. 99% of people really do walk around with ideas like "what's wrong with cavity searches before flights? if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide" and "what's wrong with DRM? copyright holders should be allowed to protect their
      • I don't think that's true. People, in general, act in their own best interests up until the point where force (law or societal taboos) offer strong enough resistance.

        Most Americans don't mind spreading their cheeks for inspection at the airport because they beleive its worth it to "eliminate" the chance of getting all blowed up. The arabian exchange student in line behind them, who had the misfortune of forgetting to leave his lighter at home and must now spend a year or two in a PMITA prison, is seen as

  • Obligatory UK note (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:33AM (#14634498)

    We don't have "fair use" in UK copyright law, at least not in the sense it's usually used around here to refer to the exemptions in the US.

    However, a small number of national reference libraries in the UK, including the British Library, have a special legal right to claim a free copy of works published in the UK.

    • Re:Obligatory UK note (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gumshoe ( 191490 )
      In English Law it's called "Fair Dealing" and unless I'm misunderstanding something it's "Fair Use" in all but name.

      Sections 28-76 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [opsi.gov.uk] lists the exceptions to infringing acts laid out in section 16. In a nutshell, copyright is not infringed in instances of using the work for research, private study, for criticism, for review or for news reporting. There are also exceptions for educational and library use.

      Also, there are some exceptions relating to computer pr

      • The US fair use and UK fair dealing provisions are broadly similar, but the US version is rather more generous in what it (theoretically, in light of subsequent legislation) allows. However, the way national reference libraries are supported, which is what we're talking about here, is covered by its own little bit of law in the UK, not under the general fair whatever exemptions that anyone can use. (IIRC, in the US the Library of Congress has similar rights, but you'd have to ask someone better informed abo

    • We do actually, as codified in the 2005 amendment to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, section Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 29 [jenkins-ip.com] "Research and private study."

      The same act, Part 5, Chapter 48, section 296ZE [jenkins-ip.com] "Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts", allows action to be taken where DRM blocks acts permitted under law.

  • Good points (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:34AM (#14634503)
    The librarians are making some good points about further flaws in DRM. I'm glad to see the media finally starting to pick up on this and report stories about the dark side of DRM. Now if we could only get more mentions of it on THIS side of the pond, maybe people other than the technically adept will start to get pissed about DRM and force some change.

    OK, not likely, but a guy can dream, can't he?

    • Re:Good points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:41AM (#14634556) Journal
      "We have grave concerns about the potential use of DRMs by rightholders to override existing copyright exceptions," its statement said.

      In the long term, the restrictions would not expire when a work went out of copyright, it said, and it may be impossible to trace the rights holders by that time.

      "It is probable that no key would still exist to unlock the DRMs," Laca said. "For libraries this is serious.

      So copyright law be damned. Slap some DRM on your work and it's yours for perpetuity, even after the copyright expires, simply by "losing" the key. Convenient.

      • I don't think you could gain anything that way - if you're selling copies, you clearly do have the key.
        • If you're selling copies, you've got a good incentive to not give anyone else the key. If your DRM is really unbreakable and there's no law that forces you to give up that key, you can keep your monopoly on selling copies forever.

      • Technology advances (Score:3, Insightful)

        by massysett ( 910130 )
        This is a legitimate concern, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. By the time these copyrights expire, technology will have improved to an extent we can't imagine. If they're dealing with a circa-2005 copy restriction scheme, I'd bet it could easily be brute forced fifty years from now.

        A better question might be, fifty years from now, will anyone have the technology to even access the works? Think how hard it is to play an eight-track, or even an old 45. If it's copy restricted, will anyone remember how

        • Think how hard it is to play an eight-track, or even an old 45.

          Generally, the owners of such works that are still interesting are "remastering" them, and re-releasing them in the modern format. There are more Beatles songs on major CD releases than on major phonograph or tape releases (probably more on the old formats for "minor" releases, but I don't know enough about those for a judgement). Of course, they claim it isn't the 60's release, but that the "remastering" lets them renew the copyright becaus
    • DRM asserts the rights of the content creator. Legislators need to spend a bit of time concerning themselves with the rights of the consumer who has licensed/bought the materials.

  • About the British Library... (Score:5, Funny)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:36AM (#14634521)
    ... they're a lot more influential than people realise. They do run their own special forces unit [wikipedia.org], which for no adequately explored reason conducts all its business in Japanese...

  • And the hackers save us? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:38AM (#14634536)
    Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent.

    I would think that's where the people that enjoy breaking DRM protection comes into play. It would be nice to get a government sanction to break into content for the fun of it. Or at least I'm assuming it'd be nice for people that can actually do it :)
    • What should be done is that it is illegal, as theft from the public, to produce a DRM system that does not timeout. And, I am sure congress (MPAA/RIAA/Publishing lobby teat-suckers that they are) will get right on that.

  • Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot.jawtheshark@com> on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:39AM (#14634540) Homepage Journal
    They are right, but nowhere copyright says that using the material under "Fair use" should be easy. I dislike DRM as the next slashdotter, but the only way not to support DRM is to vote with your money: don't buy the stuff. Of course that is going to be hard, after all we all love our Playstation games, our LoTR DVD's and our (now always crippled) music CDs. Not to mention we all love iTunes because of the convenience.

    On top of that, non-slashdotters don't know and even care less than we.

    Finally: even if everybody would boycott DRM enabled media, the distributors will blame piracy. It's a lose-lose situation in all cases.

    • Re:Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:45AM (#14634583)
      They are right, but nowhere copyright says that using the material under "Fair use" should be easy.

      As a defence of DRM, that would be fine... if the content cartels hadn't managed to get a law passed that makes the exercise of fair use not only difficult, but illegal.

      If the content providers want to wrap their products in DRM, that's their own business. But if they do, then the law should side with the citizens exercising their fair use rights: such things as modchips, libdvdcss, or hacked ebook readers should be explicitly protected by law, rather than being banned as they are at present.

      • Mod Parent Up.. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by debest ( 471937 )

        They are right, but nowhere copyright says that using the material under "Fair use" should be easy.

        As a defence of DRM, that would be fine... if the content cartels hadn't managed to get a law passed that makes the exercise of fair use not only difficult, but illegal.

        Absolutely. The evil thing about the WIPO treaties' laws (DMCA included) is that they play lip-service to respecting fair use, but make it impossible to claim it. In the US, you are technically permitted to break the DRM for your own person

        • If, however, you publish something that prevents copies from being made, then you forfeit the legal mechanism that the government has granted you. You are taking the job of preventing infringment of your work out of the government's hand, and taking responsibility for that yourself. After all, why should you be given protection from illicit copying of their work when your work is "uncopyable"?

          This is, after all, exactly what happens when you choose to go after a patent instead of maintaining a trade secret.
    • They are right, but nowhere copyright says that using the material under "Fair use" should be easy

      What?

      It's a right, specified in law. There aren't "levels" here, it's either a true or false value.

      So, it's okay if Free Speech isn't easy, right?

      • Re:Of course... (Score:3, Informative)

        by yar ( 170650 )
        Sadly, it's not a right. The law only says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright. If it was a right, then the anti-circumvention measures in the DMCA would have been much harder to pass. If a librarian circumvents DRM, even for a use that is determined fair, they are very likely liable for the act.
        (Not a librarian, but have an MLIS and have been advised by legal counsel.)
    • Finally: even if everybody would boycott DRM enabled media, the distributors will blame piracy. It's a lose-lose situation in all cases.

      If everybody would boycott DRM enabled media and stop pirating it, the distributors would no longer have anyone to blame but themselves.

  • Libraries and Librarians (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Raleel ( 30913 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:41AM (#14634554)
    See, here's where we, the nerds and IT folk, need to work with the librarians and support them.

    I had the priveledge of speaking with a librarian on a plane ride one time. While not particularly tech saavy, she was quite passionate about information freedom and privacy. It hadn't even occurred to me until that point that the librarians had been working for what so many of us had believed in for a long time. They were the Googles before we had Google.

    • she was quite passionate about information freedom

      Was she equally passionate about Entertainment Freedom? I'm sure she didn't confuse the two... did she?

      Did you?
    • And many MLS programs (Masters of Library Systems) are becoming increasing technical. Most MLS grads now graduate with basic computer science, basic relational database, and basic XML knowledge under their belt. There are also LIS (Library Information Systems) programs that cross over with computer science programs, specifically database systems, to the point of sharing classes with the CS people.
  • Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this. Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to.

    What does DRM stand for again?

    Data-Retaining Miser? Data-Retention Misery? Data-Restraining Misanthrope?

    • Re:DRM needs to check-out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:48AM (#14634613)
      What does DRM stand for again?

      Do your bit for information freedom.

      DRM stands for Digital Restrictions Management.

      What, you heard it was Digital Rights Management? No, no, no. The purpose of the technology is to take away rights, like the fair use right to copy to an ipod or a mix tape, and to impose restrictions, like how if your subscription to Napster lapses then all your music stops working. It's Digital Restrictions Management.

      Use the phrase in your posts, in conversation with non-techies, on IRC. Whenever the subject arises. Spread the meme. Subvert the language. It's Digital Restrictions Management, because they want to Restrict you. They care nothing for your rights.

      • DRM is perfectly named. Your confusions stems from your assumption that the Rights are *yours*.

        DRM refers to the rights of the digital data, to not be copied, or otherwise abused at the hands of filthy pirates.

        Please won't somebody think of the bits?

      • I always thought that DRM was appropriately named, it just depends on the frame of mind that you are coming from.

        DRM - Digital Rights Management. The system is managing your rights... by taking them away, instead of you managing your rights.
    • DRM: Doesn't Really Matter.

      (as in, generally easy to get around. certainly the larger effects on society, culture, and technology matter a great deal.)
  • I wonder if any of the sony rootkits have made it into the music collections of libraries? Would the librarians even know to not stock those titles?
    • Yes, Sony Rootkits did make it into libraries. Yes, most librarians know not to stock such titles. Many are quite technologically proficient and follow sites like Slashdot. :P

  • MPAA laughs at Copyright end-dates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:43AM (#14634572)
    I was involved in some video Copy Protection Technology standardisation efforts in Europe and had to sit round the table with the MPAA. ANY attempt to bring an argument along the lines of "how do we put the copyright expiration date into the DRM metadata" was laughed at. None of the technology companies were interested in running with the idea either - the consumers rights could just go hang.

    All part of life in the behind-the-scenes world of technology standardisation.

    • It could be worse - they could be designing the copy protection so that all public copies erase themselves (or render themselves unplayable) a few months before their copyright is due to end. Then they could release new versions with a new, updated copyright date.

  • Not an issue (Score:4, Funny)

    by VisceralLogic ( 911294 ) <paul@@@viscerallogic...com> on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:44AM (#14634579) Homepage
    they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. Fortunately for us here in the US, works going out of copyright isn't an issue.

  • The right to control material (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NiteShaed ( 315799 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:45AM (#14634584)
    "DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to."

    I'm not sure I agree with this point of view. It seems to me that it's not a right to control material and copyright confers, but the right to legal protection from infringement on that material. If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?

    That said, I don't really agree with that approach, I'm just not a fan of telling a creator what they can do with their creation.

    • If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?

      Normally, yes, I'd agree with you. If the market doesn't like it, it doesn't have to buy/license your product, and if they choose to accept your terms, that's fair enough.

      However, as I noted in my earlier post, the national reference libraries have certain legal privileges here t

    • Re:The right to control material (Score:5, Interesting)

      by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:57AM (#14634680)
      The only problem with this approach is that copyright is not a god-given right, but a 18th century founded trade agreement.

      The society, with the help of the executive arm - the "Government" - grants temporary rights to help innovation so thus society in general.

      That was the theory in the 18th century and it worked sort-of, but in today's world that theory breaks down because of new technologies and that because the content creators don't keep their end of the bargain. They don't contribute back to society as they should.

      You can't have your cake and eat it too, its a simple choice:

      You either adhere to the _spirit_ of the copyright and use the temporary timeframe given to you while you have "copyright" over something which after the required amount of time becomes public domain OR you are outside the scope of copyright and you receive NO LEGAL PROTECTION if someone else wants to do whatever he wants with the thing you "created".
    • If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?

      Once you've sold someone the copy, it's on the whole none of your business what they do with it - it's theirs to do with as they like. Your rights under copyright are special exceptions, not the norm.

    • Well, no- it isn't.
      Copyright is a limited, government created right, created to give the author a financial incentive to continue creating so that ultimately the public can benefit from those creations. The US, in particular, has a strong utilitarian tradition, reflected in its laws. The public has an interest in a creator's work, and has given the creator protection for the eventual good of the public. You're arguing from a strong moral rights stance. Different countries implement moral rights in different

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:49AM (#14634625)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • So if I write a novel, distribute it via DRM'd e-book, I'm supposed to make a plain-text copy available to every library that wants it? I'm already trusting the "fans" not to crack the DRM and put the book's contents up on their blogs, now I'm going to trust total strangers (with that WTF-bizarro "Entertainment is Information and Information Cries Out To Be Free" chip on their shoulders) with an un-encrypted copy?

      Sh'yeah. OK. That'll happen. I'll get right on it...

  • This may be intentional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @09:57AM (#14634674) Homepage Journal
    In recent years, I've read a number of comments from people in the publishing industry that mention a statistic: The average published book is read by four people. The contexts of the quote is usually that this is considered a problem, and Something Should Be Done About It.

    One way to understand this is to think of the books that you own. How many of your books have been read by three or more other people? Probably none, right? So where does this supposed average of four come from? Right again - libraries. The publishing industry generally considers libraries to be a serious problem. Libraries pay for a book only once, and then they let anyone read the book. All those readers should have bought their own copy. If publishers can make this happen, they think it will quadruple their income.

    One of the things going on with DRM is that publishers see a solution to their problem, in the form of software that will prevent anyone other than the purchaser from reading a book. The intent is to prevent public libraries from doing what they're doing. They're also looking at the possibility of making you pay a second time if you want to reread a book.

    Most publishers aren't in business to educate their readers or to contribute to our culture. They are in business to make money. If they can't make money from a book, they have no reason to let you read it. They certainly don't want you to read a book for free.

    So if you think libraries are an important part of our culture, you should also be thinking about ways to preserve public access to their content. Publishers think they will soon be able to end such public access. They'll probably succeed, unless steps are taken to preserve access.

    (Of course, here in the US, most of the population hasn't been inside a library in years. ;-)

    • In the UK the libraries pay a fee to the publishers each time a book is borrowed.

    • So if you think libraries are an important part of our culture, you should also be thinking about ways to preserve public access to their content.

      ...

      (Of course, here in the US, most of the population hasn't been inside a library in years. ;-)

      If you think libraries are an important part of our culture go use them! stories like this - and the British Library generally - make me wish i still lived in London so i could go support them. i now live just outside DC and while the Library of Congress doesn't em

    • Take business out of the equation. Hand over all publishing to the people. Set up a national publishing board that is elected by the public to oversee all publishing in the United States. The public would have a say in not only prices of published works but what kind of rights a purchaser is entitled to wrt to the published work.

      The current system of industry cartels and collusion cannot be allowed to continue. We need to stand up for our rights as citizens and consumers and demand not only a free and compe

      • We need to stand up for our rights as citizens and consumers and demand not only a free and competitive market for these works, but public oversight and control of the means of production and distribution and the rights of the consumers who purchase these goods.

        (boggle!) Do you even have a clue what the inherent contradiction is in that single sentence?

        Besides, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of small publishers out there. Don't like what the big houses are doing? Then vote with your wallet

    • Yeah, I'm cheap, so I don't buy books I don't need to. I just borrow books I want to read from the library. I know in the libraries around here, it's very easy to a book from another library. Just look up the book you want in the catalogue and place a hold. How is it in other places? They are lacking when it comes to the software selection though.

  • Public Domain? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@@@syberghost...com> on Friday February 03, 2006 @10:07AM (#14634759)
    I don't see any compelling reason to believe that any work created since the term "DRM" was invented will ever go out of copyright.
  • It may do more then harm them, in time it may elminate them totally.

  • DRM and the Library of Congress (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2006 @10:25AM (#14634896)
    I was recently in a room with a high ranking IT person from the U.S. Library of Congress.

    He essentially said the same thing, but here is where it gets interesting.

    He remarked (from my imperfect memory) "People don't understand the amount of money thrown at senators and congressman from media companies to get some favorable legislation. It's so political now that we've been instructed by the head of the library of congress to not comment on this issue, so you can see where this is all going".

    This is scary. The LOC knows congress is selling us out, but they've been told to keep their big mouths shut.
    • If this was the case why not send his remarks (as you recollect) to a local news media. At the very least you may be doing a good thing by trying to help bring these back door coersions to light. At best it gets picked up by the media (local then national) so even more people then those addicted to /. become aware of how much we/thary are losing by those who are meant to represent them.

      Every now and then I read these types of comments on this site and I wonder why those who are upset by what they hear do
    • I'm sure these guys will be squarely on the opposite side of that table with plenty of cashola in hand to boot.

      http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2005/05-250.html [loc.gov]
  • I think it should be illegal to put copy protection on digital works that are more than what could be applied to a video tape or a book (a physical ink on paper book).
  • The songs I've bought from iTunes tell me that I can transfer them to a total of x number of other computers. (Is it 5? I don't remember. Lets just say it is 5.) Well, if I get a new computer every 2 years, that means in 12 years from buying a song, I can't use it on my new computer any more. That's kind of bullshit. Obviously, their DRM is easy to get around (burn audio CD, rip audio CD) but who wants to hassle? Did anyone say allofmp3.com?

  • DRM harms book sales, freedom helps them (Score:5, Informative)

    by davecb ( 6526 ) * <davecb@spamcop.net> on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:04AM (#14635239) Homepage Journal
    [Copy of my submission to the U.K. All Party Parliamentary Internet Group, re Digital Rights Management]

    I was the coauthor of a technical book, "Using Samba", published in the United States and Canada by O'Reilly and associates. Despite being made available electronically for no cost, the book was the outstanding seller in its class, and made me substantial royalties.

    The History of "Using Samba"
    This book was published without any form of explicit DRM, in a format suitable for printing from personal computers, with no limitations on distribution of personal printing, and with a license reserving only commercial printing rights to the publisher.

    There was an implicit form of rights management, in that only commercial printers have equipment capable of printing and binding on sufficiently thin paper to make a manageable book: if printed on conventional photocopier paper, the book is over three inches thick. Printing small sections for reference on photocopier paper is perfectly practical, but large-scale printing is not.

    This effectively reinforced the reservations in the license: printing for profit is both illegal and impractical, but personal printing, excerpting and copying is unrestricted.

    The net result is that the book was widely used as a reference, and the on-line readers bought the physical book for its more convenient form in great numbers. O'Reilly has since published a non-trivial number of other books in this manner.

    How copyright deposit libraries should deal with DRM issues
    Copyright and other deposit libraries, such as the National Libraries of the U.K., Canada and the United States should seek and retain unrestricted copies, offering suitable statutory protection to the authors or publishers.

    Upon the expiry of the copyright, the deposit libraries should make the originals available for a nominal fee.

    Upon the failure or discontinuance of a DRM scheme, the publishers should retain the option of republishing under a different scheme under ordinary copyright law.

    On cessation of publication, the copyright should by statute continue for no less than seven years. After this time, upon request by a member of the public, the copyright deposit library should advertise that copyright is deemed to have lapsed, and that it will offer the unrestricted copy within no more than one year. A copyright owner may then give notice that they have in fact recommenced publication, and if so the copyright deposit library shall advertise that fact and not release the unrestricted copy.

    • Wish I had mod points today. Well said. All DRM, Copyright extensions, most patents, all that are just money grabs.
    • There was an implicit form of rights management, in that only commercial printers have equipment capable of printing and binding on sufficiently thin paper to make a manageable book: if printed on conventional photocopier paper, the book is over three inches thick. Printing small sections for reference on photocopier paper is perfectly practical, but large-scale printing is not.

      This is the key point. In very much the same way, music used to be impractical to store on any kind of a large scale except in it

  • DMCA Question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:09AM (#14635282) Homepage Journal
    DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to. Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent.

    Of course, it seems unlikely that there is anything out there - or likely to be - that couldn't be cracked. But here's a question: something only exists as a DRM protected file. Its copyright expires. The DMCA is still as it is today. Is it still illegal to crack the DRM on this file?
    • But here's a question: something only exists as a DRM protected file. Its copyright expires. The DMCA is still as it is today. Is it still illegal to crack the DRM on this file?

      It is my understanding that the DMCA makes circumventing digital restrictions unlawful when it relates to copyright material. So if the copyright has expired, cracking the DRM does not violate the DMCA.

      Of course, as other posters have mentioned, those of us in the US will probably be blessed with perpetual copyright (a la Micky

  • Getting Disneyed. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by edunbar93 ( 141167 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @11:14AM (#14635326)
    Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.

    That's not much of a problem. As Disney has so carefully demonstrated, that will never, ever happen for any copyrighted work that has been published since 1928. The real problem however:

    Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent

    This will happen a lot sooner than the copyright will expire. Like in maybe 10 or 20 years. And not just that the software might not support old DRM formats (remember, they'll be producing new ones every 6 months because hackers will always find a way around them), but what about the hardware? Will it work in 15 years? Will someone be there to make replacement parts in 15 years? DRM is all about tying one electronic copy to one device at a time, whether it's a PDA-style book reader or a PC. But the whole point of electronic formats is reproducability so that you can prevent data loss (among other things).

    The Disneys and Sonys of the world don't give a rat's ass about whether a historian can understand our culture (and by extension, their own) in a hundred or six hundred years. They care only whether or not they can make money this year.

  • first off (Score:2, Informative)

    by majortom1981 ( 949402 )
    I am an etwork admin in a library. Many libraries have cd and dvd repairing machines (the professional kind) so all it takes is to let them know that a cd is scratched. Second Atleats the libary that I work in has a bigger dvd collection then probably the local blockbusters and holywood videos. This could harm many libraries because people dont read books anymore. Libraries depend on free computer and wifi access and the cd and dvd takeout. Oh trust me the riaa and mpaa will hear about it.
  • Publishers that use technological measures to restrict use of their content end up restricting fair use. Since they aren't holding up their part of the copyright bargain, they should not be entitled to copyright protection. That is, once their technological measures have been cracked, you should be able to copy the content freely.

    Conversely, publishers that choose to publish without technological restrictions should be entitled to full legal protection of their copyrights (although there should be some mi

  • Read Herring (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hacksoncode ( 239847 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @02:16PM (#14636799)
    If it takes more than 10 minutes to break today's DRM 100 years from now: a) I will eat my Birkenstocks without salt, and b) someone just shoot me, because we've failed as a civilization.

    So the whole "what about when copyright expires" spiel is a read herring (pun intended).

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close